4 ms·

This is why it's important to have limits. As a society, we have laws that make it illegal to cross certain boundaries. As an individual, I'm free to set my o

This is why it's important to have limits. As a society, we have laws that make it illegal to cross certain boundaries. As an individual, I'm free to set my own limits on what I'll do. For one, I don't work at facebook or other adtech companies because I think the world has enough advertising and I don't like how phone-addicted people are. I just think it's incredibly naive to assume you can have whatever lifestyle you want and be commercially successful. Success is costly ; you have to, almost by definition, be willing to do things other people aren't. I don't know where this idea that you somehow "deserve" to work "only 60 hours per week" comes from -- I just know that there are a lot of incredibly hard-working people in tech, and it's a high-stakes, high-money game, so you're going to get some outliers.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> I don't know where this idea that you somehow "deserve" to work "only 60 hours per week" comes from Perhaps you missed labor regulations over the last 200 years during the industrial revolution? That's where these ideas come from, that someone can have a solid quality of life without trading 60-100 hours a week of their life away.
- eldavido 11y ago
  Honest question: do you see modern tech workers as "labor" in the classic sense? I don't but you seem to, I wonder why? My rudimentary understanding of labor law suggests it's not really clear what we are right now.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > Honest question: do you see modern tech workers as "labor" in the classic sense? If they're owners, founders, or have significant equity? No. That's not the vast majority of tech workers though. They're (we? I'm a tech worker) just higher up in the caste system.
  - csa 11y ago
    Capital (e.g., VCs) definitely see both founders and programmers as "labor". At best, highly successful founders can be seen as aspirational capital, That said, the vast majority of founders are not perceived that way, and they are not even perceived to have the potential to become anything other than labor. Is this labor in the "classic sense"? "Yes" if you're talking about the capital/labor division. "Conditional no" if you're talking about industrial labor. Capital loves how easy it is these days to get motivated and fairly intelligent people to work for incredibly low wages, especially in the Bay Area. Some of those people actually create value that can be capitalized on. I personally consider this an abuse of labor. I imagine that industrial-style regulation is not needed, as the curtain hiding the grossly misaligned relationships will eventually be pulled back -- most likely in the next big economic downturn.
- pjlegato 11y ago
  Those regulations are intended to prevent employers from abusing their employees. They do not entitle you to be a successful startup founder for only X hours of work per week. You're not an employee when you're working for yourself.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    I agree with you, but OP was not specific in that sense.
Retra 11y ago
This all depends on what you consider 'success.' You're gonna be a corpse in the ground sooner or later, and if you spend most your life digging gold out of mines for 20 hours a day, I wouldn't call that a success. It may be a sacrifice. But if all you've got to show for it is wealth, then why bother?

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> I don't know where this idea that you somehow "deserve" to work "only 60 hours per week" comes from Perhaps you missed labor regulations over the last 200 years during the industrial revolution? That's where these ideas come from, that someone can have a solid quality of life without trading 60-100 hours a week of their life away.

eldavido 11y ago
Honest question: do you see modern tech workers as "labor" in the classic sense? I don't but you seem to, I wonder why? My rudimentary understanding of labor law suggests it's not really clear what we are right now.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > Honest question: do you see modern tech workers as "labor" in the classic sense? If they're owners, founders, or have significant equity? No. That's not the vast majority of tech workers though. They're (we? I'm a tech worker) just higher up in the caste system.
- csa 11y ago
  Capital (e.g., VCs) definitely see both founders and programmers as "labor". At best, highly successful founders can be seen as aspirational capital, That said, the vast majority of founders are not perceived that way, and they are not even perceived to have the potential to become anything other than labor. Is this labor in the "classic sense"? "Yes" if you're talking about the capital/labor division. "Conditional no" if you're talking about industrial labor. Capital loves how easy it is these days to get motivated and fairly intelligent people to work for incredibly low wages, especially in the Bay Area. Some of those people actually create value that can be capitalized on. I personally consider this an abuse of labor. I imagine that industrial-style regulation is not needed, as the curtain hiding the grossly misaligned relationships will eventually be pulled back -- most likely in the next big economic downturn.
pjlegato 11y ago
Those regulations are intended to prevent employers from abusing their employees. They do not entitle you to be a successful startup founder for only X hours of work per week. You're not an employee when you're working for yourself.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I agree with you, but OP was not specific in that sense.

Retra 11y ago

This all depends on what you consider 'success.' You're gonna be a corpse in the ground sooner or later, and if you spend most your life digging gold out of mines for 20 hours a day, I wouldn't call that a success. It may be a sacrifice. But if all you've got to show for it is wealth, then why bother?